Unsatisfactory Outcome of Arthrodesis Performed After Septic Failure of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic infection is one of the most dreaded orthopaedic complications. Current treatment procedures include one-stage or two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty. If the periprosthetic infection is no longer controllable after several revision total knee arthroplasties, many surgeons regard knee arthrodesis as a promising option. The aim of our study was to ascertain whether intramedullary nailing results in the suppression or eradication of an infection and to identify risk factors for persistent infection. METHODS: All patients who had undergone intramedullary nailing following septic failure of revision total knee arthroplasty between 1997 and 2013 were included in the study. Pathogens, risk factors predisposing to persistent infection, and the rate of persistent infections were recorded. In addition, a visual analog scale (VAS) and Knee injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Society Score (KSS), Lysholm, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaires were completed to assess clinical outcomes and quality of life. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were included in the study. Thirteen (50%) had a persistent infection requiring additional revision surgery. Nineteen patients (73%) reported persistent pain (VAS score of >3). All scores showed marked impairment of quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Intramedullary nailing following septic failure of revision total knee arthroplasty must be regarded with skepticism, and we cannot recommend it. Repeat revision total knee arthroplasty or amputation should be considered as an alternative in such difficult cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".